The decision of the Speaker of the Sejm, Elżbieta Witek, on the reassumption of Wednesday’s vote was commented on by Dr. Mikołaj Małecki, a lawyer from the Department of Criminal Law of the Jagiellonian University, on TVN24. He judged that “there were no legal grounds and no regulatory prerequisites for the Marshal to order this vote”. The lawyer said there was “a breach of the rules of the Sejm and a violation of the constitution.” In his opinion, the bills passed under this procedure “have a defect of unconstitutionality”.
On Wednesday after 5 p.m., a voting block began in the Sejm, the plan of which included voting on the anti-TVN bill. Unexpectedly, the deputies, at the request of the opposition, voted to postpone the meeting until September. Immediately after the vote, Sejm Marshal Elżbieta Witek from Law and Justice ordered a break. When the deputies returned to the meeting room, Witek announced that she had received it request for reassumption of the vote on the adjournment of the sitting of the Sejm. This conclusion, she said, refers to the fact that “no date was given”. “I consulted five lawyers who confirmed that this motion could be voted on at this hearing,” she said. In another vote, the Sejm rejected the motion to adjourn the session. That day was put to the vote lex TVNwhich was passed with 228 votes.
Małecki on Witek’s decision to reassume the vote
Dr. Mikołaj Małecki, a lawyer from the Department of Criminal Law of the Jagiellonian University, said that “it turns out that after the attack on the judiciary and a significant weakening of the judiciary in Poland, after the unprecedented attack on the free media as a result of the adoption of the anti-TVN law, we also have evidence that there is no real legislative power in Poland anymore “.
– If the result of the vote is not decided by the will of the Sejm, but the will of one party, and the vote can be repeated until the result satisfies the president of one party, it means that the Sejm no longer functions normally, he assessed.
He added that “this has nothing to do with the correct procedure of the Seym, which also decides, as a collegial body, how to proceed”. – The decision of the Sejm to postpone the meeting as a result of an unambiguous, binding vote is a binding decision of this body and the Marshal had no grounds to order a reassumption of this vote in this situation. It was a breach of the rules of the Sejm and a breach of the constitution – said Małecki.
Małecki: There were no legal grounds for reassumption
He was asked therefore whether the laws that had been passed after the resumption of the proceedings were therefore invalid.
Małecki will emphasize that “there were no legal grounds and no regulatory prerequisites for the Marshal to order this reassumption vote”. – The provision of the regulations says that there are to be justified doubts as to the result of voting. So not any doubts about any circumstances, but about the result of the vote – explained the lawyer.
He added that “whether a deputy has doubts as to the date of the meeting, or, for example, changed his mind after the fact, these are not the reasons for a reassumption of the vote”.
– This provision is also unequivocal, because it says that it is about justified doubts – he emphasized. – There is no legal basis for reassumption, therefore the Sejm should not, according to its own will, make any decisions according to its own will, he added.
Lawyer: laws are unconstitutional
Małecki said that “there is no doubt that all these laws, provisions passed in such a procedure, are contrary to the constitution.”
“The laws are unconstitutional,” he added. However, he stressed that the problem was that “we do not have a real Constitutional Tribunal”. – Of course, these bills can be appealed against to the Constitutional Tribunal, only that this body does not function at present. We are in a situation where there are serious legal flaws in all the bills that were passed yesterday in the Sejm and there is no Tribunal that could state it, he repeated.
He added that “it will be possible in specific proceedings in the future before common courts, perhaps also before the Supreme Administrative Court or the Supreme Court, to prove that these acts were adopted in a non-statutory manner”.
Main photo source: TVN24